Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

It took Japan’s Fukushima disaster to make nuclear energy interesting to students in Karl Craddock’s advanced placement chemistry class at William Fremd High School in Palatine, Ill. Too bad the buzz was about radiation plumes, iodine pills, and potential deadly threats at nuclear power plants that generate more than half the electricity in Illinois. It wasn’t the sort of talk to get kids excited about a career in nuclear energy. “It doesn’t have the cool factor right now, that’s for sure,” says Craddock, who has taught science at the suburban Chicago high school for seven years.

Nuclear utilities in the U.S. will need to hire nearly 25,000 people to replace the 39 percent of its workforce that will be eligible for retirement by 2016, says Carol L. Berrigan, senior director for industry infrastructure for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington-based trade group. Meanwhile, U.S. universities awarded a total of 715 graduate and undergraduate degrees in Nuclear engineering in 2009, the most recent year for which data is available.

After nuclear plant disasters at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and Chernobyl in Ukraine, nuclear power lost political support in the U.S. Hiring slowed through the 1990s and nuclear workers under the age of 40 became a rarity as talk turned from expansion to shutting down existing plants. “That’s not an exciting prospect for a young person thinking about their career,” says K.L. “Lee” Peddicord, a professor of nuclear engineering and director of the nuclear Power Institute at Texas A&M University.

In recent weeks I have been excited to witness several genuine grassroots efforts in support of nuclear energy emerging on the scene. Several have already been covered on this forum, like the Rally for Vermont Yankee and the Webinar collaboration by the nuclear Regulatory Commission and the American nuclear Society. Both of these efforts proved to be very successful in bringing together nuclear supporters and gaining attention from the mainstream media.

I’d like to share some information about another opportunity to actively show your support for nuclear. The White House recently launched a petition program called “We the People.” Here is the description of how it works: This tool provides you with a new way to petition the Obama administration to take action on a range of important issues facing our country. If a petition gets enough support, White House staff will review it, ensure it’s sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response. One of the first and most popular petitions on the website is a call to end subsidies and loan guarantees for nuclear energy by 2013. As I write this, it is only about a thousand signatures away from reaching the White House. In response to this petition, Ray Wallman, a young nuclear supporter and filmmaker, wrote a counter petition called “Educate the Public Regarding nuclear Power.” It needs 4,500 more signatures before October 23 in order to get a formal response, and reads as follows:

Due to the manufactured controversy that is the nuclear reactor meltdown in Fukushima, Japan, perpetuated by a scientifically illiterate news media, the public is unnecessarily hostile to nuclear power as an energy source. To date nobody has died from the accident and Fukushima, and nuclear power has the lowest per Terra-watt hour death toll of any energy source known to man: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html The Obama administration should take better strides to educate the public regarding this important energy source.

Though nuclear power produces electricity with little in the way of carbon dioxide emissions, it, like other energy sources, is not without its own set of waste products. And in the case of nuclear power, most of these wastes are radioactive.1 Some very low level nuclear wastes can be stored and then disposed of in landfill-type settings. Other nuclear waste must remain sequestered for a few hundred years in specially engineered subsurface facilities; this is the case with low level waste, which is composed of low concentrations of long-lived radionuclides and higher concentrations of short-lived ones. Intermediate and high-level waste both require disposal hundreds of meters under the Earth’s surface, where they must remain out of harm’s way for thousands to hundreds of thousands of years (IAEA, 2009). Intermediate level wastes are not heat-emitting, but contain high concentrations of long-lived radionuclides. High-level wastes, including spent nuclear fuel and wastes from the reprocessing of spent fuel, are both heat-emitting and highly radioactive.

When it comes to the severity of an accident at a nuclear facility, there may be little difference between those that occur at the front end of the nuclear power production and those at the back end: An accident involving spent nuclear fuel can pose a threat as disastrous as that posed by reactor core meltdowns. In particular, if spent fuel pools are damaged or are not actively cooled, a major crisis could be in sight, especially if the pools are packed with recently discharged spent fuel.

Elements of success

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DOE Response to Recommendation 2011-1 of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Safety Culture at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: On June 09, 2011, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board affirmed their Recommendation 2011-1, concerning Safety Culture at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, to the Department of Energy. In accordance with section 315(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2286d(b), The following represents the Secretary of Energy's response to the recommendation.

As the Board notes in the introduction to this Recommendation, DOE committed itself to establishing and maintaining a strong nuclear safety culture almost 20 years ago through Secretary of Energy Notice SEN-35-91, nuclear Safety Policy. This commitment was reiterated and confirmed in February 2011, in DOE Policy 420.1, Department of Energy nuclear Safety Policy. We agree with the Board's position that establishment of a strict safety culture must be a fundamental principle throughout the DOE complex, and we are in unqualified agreement with the Board that the WTP mission is essential to protect the health and safety of the public, our workers, and the environment from radioactive wastes in aging storage tanks at Hanford.

A week ago, a busy 55th General Conference closed at the IAEA, where major issues in nuclear science, nuclear safety and nuclear power were discussed, and successful projects undertaken throughout the year were highlighted. Keynote Address This year's Scientific Forum focused on water and the efforts being made by the IAEA and its partners to improve its availability and management. In his keynote address to the Scientific Forum, U.S. Secretary for Energy and Nobel Laureate Steven Chu described how nuclear techniques have proven to be powerful tools that successfully and efficiently help to find, measure, monitor, characterize and manage aquifer and ground water. "nuclear technologies and techniques can - and must - play an important role in solving the global water challenge. Isotope hydrology can provide critical information about water resources, so we can better manage them", he said. He also described how isotopic analysis can be used to verify the anthropogenic causes of climate change. In closing, Secretary Chu called for "a sustained commitment to scientific research and development to address the great challenges of our time" since support from governments is critical to unleashing innovation".

Nuclear Safety Nuclear safety has been on a global concern since the devastating Nuclear accident in Japan in March. The IAEA Member States developed a Nuclear Safety Action Plan that the Board of Governors approved and the General Conference endorsed. A new system which makes it easier for Member States and the Agency to exchange emergency information was launched. Following the first meeting of the Nuclear Industry Cooperation Forum, its Chair, Garry Young, who is also the Director of Nuclear Business Development at the US Nuclear power operator, Entergy, talked to Sasha Henriques from the IAEA Division of Public Information, about how important it is for Nuclear power plant operators from around the world to work together to avoid another major Nuclear accident like Fukushima Daiichi. Listen to the interview here:

Senegal signed the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage during the General Conference. Among other things, the Convention establishes an international fund to increase the amount available to compensate victims of Nuclear accidents. Mauritania deposited the instruments of accession to three international safety Conventions on 19 September 2011: the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident; the Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency and the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management.

Nuclear Phase-Out Related articles, background features and opinions about this topic. Print E-Mail Feedback 07/13/2011   Phase-Out Hurdle Germany Could Restart Nuclear Plant to Plug Energy Gap dapd Germany might need to switch a Nuclear power plant back on. Germany's energy agency is warning that one of the German reactors mothballed in the wake of Fukushima may have to be restarted to make up for possible power shortages this winter and next. Berlin is also   using money earmarked for energy efficiency to subsidize coal-fired power plants. For reasons of data protection and privacy, your IP address will only be stored if you are a registered user of Facebook and you are currently logged in to the service. For more detailed information, please click on the "i" symbol. Nuclear energy, as has become abundantly clear this year, has no future in Germany. For once the government, the parliament and the public all agree: Atomic reactors in the country will be history a decade from now. Before that can happen, however, the country has to find alternate power sources. In fact, amid concerns that supply shortages this winter could result in temporary blackouts, Germany's Federal Network Agency on Tuesday indicated that one of the seven reactors shut down in the immediate wake of the Fukushima Nuclear disaster in Japan could be restarted this winter to fill the gap . "The numbers that we currently have indicate that one of these Nuclear energy plants will be needed," said agency head Matthias Kurth on Tuesday in Berlin. He said that ongoing analysis has indicated that fossil fuel-powered plants would not prove to be adequate as a backup.

Nuclear Phase-Out Related articles, background features and opinions about this topic. Print E-Mail Feedback 07/13/2011   Phase-Out Hurdle Germany Could Restart Nuclear Plant to Plug Energy Gap dapd Germany might need to switch a Nuclear power plant back on. Germany's energy agency is warning that one of the German reactors mothballed in the wake of Fukushima may have to be restarted to make up for possible power shortages this winter and next. Berlin is also   using money earmarked for energy efficiency to subsidize coal-fired power plants. For reasons of data protection and privacy, your IP address will only be stored if you are a registered user of Facebook and you are currently logged in to the service. For more detailed information, please click on the "i" symbol. Nuclear energy, as has become abundantly clear this year, has no future in Germany. For once the government, the parliament and the public all agree: Atomic reactors in the country will be history a decade from now. Before that can happen, however, the country has to find alternate power sources. In fact, amid concerns that supply shortages this winter could result in temporary blackouts, Germany's Federal Network Agency on Tuesday indicated that one of the seven reactors shut down in the immediate wake of the Fukushima Nuclear disaster in Japan could be restarted this winter to fill the gap

Nuclear Phase-Out Related articles, background features and opinions about this topic. Print E-Mail Feedback 07/13/2011  Phase-Out Hurdle Germany Could Restart Nuclear Plant to Plug Energy Gap dapd Germany might need to switch a Nuclear power plant back on. Germany's energy agency is warning that one of the German reactors mothballed in the wake of Fukushima may have to be restarted to make up for possible power shortages this winter and next. Berlin is also using money earmarked for energy efficiency to subsidize coal-fired power plants.

Global growth in the civilian nuclear energy sector represents an annual trade market estimated at $500 billion to $740 billion over the next 10 years.  As new nations consider nuclear energy technology to produce low-carbon electricity, the United States should take a leadership role that will enhance the safety and nuclear nonproliferation regimes globally, while creating tens of thousands of new American jobs. The United States is the world leader in safe and efficient operation of nuclear power plants, with an average capacity factor of 90 percent or higher in each of the past 10 years.  When ranked by 36-month unit capability factor, the United States has the top three best performing nuclear reactors in the world, seven of the top 10, and 16 of the top 20.  nuclear energy facilities produce electricity in 31 states and have attained a four-fold improvement in safety during the past 20 years.  This underpinning in safety and reliability is one reason why America generates more electricity from nuclear energy than the next two largest nuclear programs combined.

Bilateral agreements on nuclear energy cooperation are vital to advancing global nonproliferation and safety goals as well as America’s interests in global nuclear energy trade.  A 123 agreement, named after section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, establishes an accord for cooperation as a prerequisite for nuclear energy trade between the United States and other nations.  The agreement contains valuable nonproliferation controls and commitments.  One of the most significant elements of U.S. agreements is approval granted by our government as to how other countries process uranium fuel after it is used in a commercial reactor.  Under U.S. agreements, these nations cannot reprocess the fuel—chemically separating the uranium and plutonium—without U.S. notification and consent to do so.  This is a significant safeguard against the potential misuse of low-enriched uranium from the commercial sector.

Several public policy considerations must be weighed in evaluating the impact of 123 agreements, including those related to national security, economic development, energy production, and environmental protection. In the competitive global marketplace for commercial nuclear technology, inconsistent bilateral agreements will have unintended consequences for U.S. suppliers.  Imposing overly restrictive commercial restrictions or conditions in U.S. 123 agreements that are not matched by other nations’ bilateral agreements may significantly bias the country against selecting U.S.-based suppliers, even if the agreements don’t have malicious intentions. 

The government must establish long-term plans for a new generation of nuclear power plants so future generations are not left dealing with its legacy, experts urged on Thursday.Ministers must work with the industry to create a "holistic" strategy which deals effectively with reprocessing and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and does not treat it simply as "an afterthought", they warned.The new build programme must also take into account the UK's stockpile of civil plutonium - the largest in the world - created as a waste fuel from nuclear reactors but which can potentially be reprocessed into new nuclear fuel.

The warning comes as the government pushes ahead with a new generation of nuclear power stations in a bid to meet electricity demand and cut carbon emissions from the energy sector.In a report from the Royal Society, the group of experts said the handling of nuclear fuel throughout its working cycle must be considered to reduce security risks and the danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons.Research and development programmes are needed from the outset of the new build project to ensure fuel is managed properly, they added.Roger Cashmore, chairman of the Royal Society working group and head of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, said: "The last time any UK government articulated a coherent long-term plan for nuclear power was in 1955.

"We need to ensure that government and industry work together now to develop a long-term, holistic strategy for nuclear power in the UK."This must encompass the entire nuclear fuel cycle, from fresh fuel manufacture to disposal. Indeed, spent fuel can no longer be an afterthought and governments worldwide need to face up to this issue."He added: "While the government has made some positive moves towards an integrated approach to nuclear power, more must be done."The call comes after the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, signalled that a new generation of nuclear power plants would go ahead after a government-ordered review into the Fukushima disaster in Japan found no reason to curtail the use of reactors in the UK.

After Fukushima a great deal of awareness on the dangers of nuclear energy has ignited a series of reactions in society, mainly a generalized rejection to nuclear energy and a call to develop cleaner and safer sources of energy. When thinking about nuclear energy mainly 2 sources come to peoples minds, solar and wind power condemning any sort of nuclear power.  nuclear power has been associated with Weapons of Mass Destruction, radiation sickness and disease.  However, this is not due to the nuclear power itself but due to the nuclear fuel used to generate this nuclear power.

The above are just some of the most common byproducts, (better known as nuclear waste) of a nuclear fuel cycle, all of these substances are extremely poisonous, causing a variety of diseases, cancers and genetic mutations to the victim.  The worst part is that most of them remain in the environment of decades or even thousands of years, so if accidentally released to the environment they become a problem that future generations have to deal with.  Therefore, in nuclear energy the problem is in the fuel not in the engine. Lets start with the Thorium Reactors.  Thorium is a naturally occurring radioactive chemical element, found in abundance throughout the world.  It is estimated that every cubic meter of earth’s crust contains about 12 grams of this mineral, enough quantity to power 1 person’s electricity consumption for 12-25 years.  Energy is produced from thorium in a process known as the Thorium Fuel Cycle, were a nuclear fuel cycle is derived from the natural abundant isotope of thorium.

In today’s world the main fuel for nuclear power is a naturally occurring radioactive mineral, Uranium.  This mineral is one of the most dense metals in the periodic table which allows it to reach a chain reaction that can yield huge amounts of energy that can be exploited for an extended period of time.  Unfortunately the nuclear fuel cycle of Uranium produced extremely dangerous byproducts, commonly known as nuclear waste.  These are produced in liquid, solid and gaseous form in a wide variety of deadly substances, such as: Iodine 131 Strontium 90 Cesium 137 Euricium 155 Krypton 85 Cadmium 113 Tin 121 Samarium 151 Technetium-99

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3, 2011 -- /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Six months after the Fukushima Daiichi accident in Japan, solid majorities of Americans still view nuclear energy favorably, still support the extension of operating licenses at existing facilities that meet federal safety standards, and still believe that construction of a new reactor is acceptable at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant that already is operating, a new national survey shows.While support for nuclear energy has declined from the historically high level seen one year ago, support on a variety of measures is holding at the majority levels found consistently in public opinion surveys conducted throughout the past decade.

In the new telephone survey of 1,000 U.S. adults, 62 percent of respondents said they favor the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States, with 35 percent opposed. Those strongly favoring nuclear energy outnumber those strongly opposed by a two-to-one ratio, 28 percent vs. 13 percent, according to the survey conducted Sept. 22-24 by Bisconti Research Inc. with GfK Roper. The survey was sponsored by the nuclear Energy Institute and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. Numerous surveys conducted by Bisconti Research over the past decade show that public support for nuclear energy topped 60 percent each year, rising as high as 74 percent of Americans in March 2010.

"While there is some evidence of impact of the Fukushima events, support for nuclear energy continues at much higher levels than in earlier decades," company President Ann Bisconti said. "Turmoil in oil-rich areas of the world and hikes in oil prices historically have focused public opinion even more on nuclear energy, and may have helped to preclude serious impact of events in Japan on public attitudes."Despite the Fukushima accident, 67 percent of Americans rate U.S. nuclear power plant safety high. This is identical to the safety rating found in a national survey last February, one month prior to the earthquake and tsunami that caused the Fukushima accident. Eighty-two percent of Americans believe that "we should learn the lessons from the Japanese accident and continue to develop advanced nuclear energy plants to meet America's growing electricity demand," the new survey showed.

I have been rereading a 1982 book by Bertrand Goldschmidt titled “The Atomic Complex: A Worldwide Political History of Nuclear Energy.”

The two self-assigned homework projects are as part of a reflective effort to understand more about how human society moved from a period of optimism based on a vision of “Atoms for Peace” to a period where someone reading the advertiser supported press would believe that sensible people would logically consider giving up the whole technology out of fear of radiation and its health consequences.One of the hopeful lessons I have learned so far is that the initial conditions of our current fight to defend and expand the safe use of atomic energy are far different from those that faced the people engaged in the earliest battles against a well organized opposition to nuclear technology development. We have a much better chance of success now than we did then – and there are several reasons why that is true.

One condition that is vastly different is the ability of nuclear professionals to have their voices heard. No longer are most people who understand nuclear energy isolated in small communities with few media outlets. In the 1970s, a large fraction of nuclear professionals were located near remotely sited national laboratories or power stations. Today, though many still work at national labs or in small market communities like Lynchburg, VA, we are all globally connected to a vast network on the Internet. We have Skype, YouTube and blogs. Some of us know that major decision makers and journalists read or listen to our words on a regular basis. We are no longer shy about responding to misinformation and unwarranted criticism.

According to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, “We want the electricity of the future to be safe, reliable and economically viable.” And in her mind, nuclear power doesn’t fit the bill anymore. She’s wrong. The truth is, nuclear power is safe, reliable, clean and cheap. And that’s precisely why global nuclear capacity is going to keep increasing, by as much as 50% between now and 2020. It’s also the reason why the long-term investment thesis for uranium stocks remains compelling

Don’t Let Recent Events Mislead You As humans, we have a tendency toward recency bias. In other words, we give recent events extra importance when making decisions. The recent radiation crisis in Japan is an example.

believing that nuclear power is now suddenly unsafe is patently wrong. As the following chart shows, nuclear power is actually the safest form of energy production available. And if anything, the crisis at Japan’s 40-year-old Fukushima Daiichi plant is only going to increase the safety precautions at existing and new nuclear power plants

Fukushima & Japan Tokyo Area Outside Tokyo Fukushima Reactors Status of Reactors Reactor No. 1 Reactor No. 2 Reactor No. 3 Spent Fuel Pools Spent Fuel Pool No. 1 Spent Fuel Pool No. 2 Spent Fuel Pool No. 3 Spent Fuel Pool No. 4 Common Spent Fuel Pool Radiation Releases Plutonium Uranium Longterm Chernobyl Comparisons Criticality US & Canada West Coast California Los Angeles San Francisco Bay Area Hawaii Seattle Canada Midwest East Coast Florida US Nuclear Facilities North Anna (VA) Calvert Cliffs (MD) World Europe France UK Germany Chernobyl Rest of Europe South America Russia Asia China South Korea Taiwan Rest of Asia Pacific Maps & Forecasts Radiation Maps Radiation Forecasts Rad. Facts Internal Emitters Health Testing Food Water Air Rain Soil Milk Strange Coverups? Children Video Home page_

The probability of an accident due to a nuclear plant is one is to infinity and all atomic power plants in the country conform to safety standards, chairman of Atomic Energy Commission Srikumar Banerjee said on Thursday. “At least 1.75 lakh people die due to road accidents in a single year whereas there are nearly 14,000 nuclear plants in the world and the casualty rate till date is just 52,” Dr. Banerjee told reporters on the sidelines of the golden jubilee celebrations of Terminal Ballistic Research Laboratory (TBRL) at Ramgarh, near Chandigarh. Pointing out that no human activity can be risk-free, he said there was a definite need for creating awareness and programmes should to be intensified to convince the people in the neighbourhood of a proposed or existing nuclear plant. He said human body faces more radiation during a CT scan than working in a nuclear power plant.

Referring to the recent Fukushima nuclear accident, Dr. Banerjee said it happened after a gap of 25 years and the cause and effect of the accident was earthquake followed by a tsunami. “It was not a nuclear accident... immediately after the earthquake, the nuclear reactor shut down and nuclear chain reaction stopped,” he said adding it was a complete station blackout as the decay heat produced in the plant could not be taken out. He, however, said the total casualty due to the nuclear accident was zero. “The spread of radiation was not as high as it was projected,” he said talking about the nuclear accident in Japan. After a nuclear reactor is shut down the energy level comes down to around 2 per cent from 100 per cent due to heat decay, Dr. Banerjee said. He, however, exuded confidence all nuclear plants in the country are safe and conform to the standards of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board and are taken care of by nuclear Power Corporation. “India too experienced earthquakes and tsunami in the past but there was no nuclear accident as the nuclear plants had all the gadgets to give signal much in advance,” he said. Dr. Banerjee rejected that alarm bells had rung in India after the Japanese nuclear accident. “All steps needed for safety and security for nuclear plants have been taken by nuclear Power Corporation,” he added.

He, however, stressed that it was necessary to strengthen the mechanism in the passive cooling system in nuclear plants in India. In the passive cooling system, heat can be taken out from the plant. Responding to a query regarding protests by habitants before setting up a nuclear plant in their neighbourhood, he said what is needed is to explain things to local people in simple local language and also convince them what actually the plant is. After land acquisition, a package must be given to the affected people and at all costs excellent relationship is needed with people living around the plant. He termed it as “baseless,” the allegation that nuclear radiation comes out from the nuclear plant. Besides, the plants along the coastal areas do not have any effect on the lives of fish, he added.

The latest reactor designs, now under construction around the world, build on over 50 years of technology development. The roadmap notes that these designs will need to be fully established as reliable and competitive electricity generators over the next few years if they are to become the mainstays of nuclear expansion after 2020

Almost one quarter of global electricity could be generated from nuclear power by 2050, making a major contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. This is the central finding of the nuclear Energy Technology Roadmap, published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the OECD nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). Such an expansion will require nuclear generating capacity to more than triple over the next 40 years, a target the roadmap describes as ambitious but achievable.

Speaking from the East Asia Climate Forum in Seoul, IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said: “Nuclear energy is one of the key low-carbon energy technologies that can contribute, alongside energy efficiency, renewable energies and carbon capture and storage, to the decarbonisation of electricity supply by 2050.” NEA Director General Luis Echávarri stated: “Nuclear is already one of the main sources of low-carbon energy today. If we can address the challenges to its further expansion, Nuclear has the potential to play a larger role in cutting CO2 emissions.”

U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, delivered a speech this week at the International V.M. Goldschmidt Conference in Knoxville.  Alexander serves on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and is the chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority Congressional Caucus.  His remarks as prepared follow:

When

in a speech in Oak Ridge in May of 2009, I called for America to build 100 new nuclear plants during the next twenty years.  nuclear power produces 70 percent of our pollution-free, carbon-free electricity today.  It is the most useful and reliable source of green electricity today because of its tremendous energy density and the small amount of waste that it produces.  And because we are harnessing the heat and energy of the earth itself through the power of the atom, nuclear power is also natural.

nuclear waste

In the area of nuclear energy, the nuclear Modeling staff specializes in developing and applying computational methods and software for simulating radiation in order to support the design and safety of nuclear facilities, improve reactor core designs and nuclear fuel performance, and ensure the safety of nuclear materials, such as spent nuclear fuel. The nuclear Modeling staff is internationally known for developing and maintaining SCALE, a comprehensive nuclear analysis software package originally developed for the nuclear Regulatory Commission with signature capabilities in the criticality safety, reactor physics and radiation shielding areas. In recent years, ORNL has placed an emphasis on transforming its current capabilities through high-performance computing, as well as the development of new and novel computational methods

Scientists at the Nuclear Science and Technology Division of the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) are merging decades of Nuclear energy and safety expertise with high-performance computing to effectively address a range of Nuclear energy- and security-related challenges.

John Wagner, Technical Integration Manager for Nuclear Modeling within ORNL's Nuclear Science and Technology Division (NSTD), says one of the goals of his organization is to integrate existing Nuclear energy and Nuclear national security modeling and simulation capabilities and associated expertise with high-performance computing to solve problems that were previously unthinkable or impractical in terms of the computing power required to address them.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m a fan of nuclear energy.  I was able to get an inside look at the current state of the nuclear industry from a friend at Qualitech Solutions named Chris Sewell.  Qualitech Solutions provides mission-critical software to many industries, including the energy industry.  They have customers that are involved in nuclear utilities as well as design engineering firms working on major construction projects.  Qualitech Solutions has been in business for more than a decade.

Sewell says, “There is a hesitancy to continue with nuclear construction projects amidst the public concern over nuclear safety.  Society as a whole has become hypersensitive with anything pertaining to nuclear plant issues and safety.  The Fukushima incident not only altered the social climate, but also affected the financial backing of various new construction projects. There is however, a general consensus that due to its low carbon imprint, nuclear energy must be part of our energy future.”

The general public fears nuclear energy.  That is understandable considering the information that the public has been given.  The catastrophes and the mistakes are front page news.  But if the general public had more information about how the best nuclear plants are run, the opinion could turn.  This is why I asked Sewell about the success of nuclear energy in France.

Reconsidering my support for nuclear energy I have found that it is only based in a desire to use it as a tool in the rather important fight against global warming and global meltdown. That in turn makes it possible to say “I hate nuclear energy. I just hate global warming more. So I support using it exactly until that problem is solved.” I said as much in my post yesterday with the nice title “Shut down those filthy nuclear reactors”.

So, what is there to hate about nuclear energy? Imagine you are a supporter of nuclear energy that is pushed by a silly reason like anger over being insulted by some random stranger on the Internet to actively look for anything that might be a problem with your former position. That is exactly what I have done. As a result, I have found basically two problems with it. One, which is the more important point, is the fact that the pro-nuclear position has lost in Germany, the only country where I actually have a vote. There is no German party I could vote for that supports building new nuclear reactors.

The victory of German anti-nuclear forces was quite decisive. That means as far as Germany is concerned, nuclear is just not a realistic option any more. Pro-nuclear advocacy is a waste of time, and a fringe minority position. Japan, the other country I might have some influence, is not quite as hopeless. Still advocating for a large increase in nuclear energy there does not seem a promising strategy.